ULEZ - Plans (and would you have to pay?)

[nw1]

As a more general point, my expectation is for politicians to behave in the interests of the entire population, including those who didn’t vote for them. Khan’s behaviour seems frequently at odds with this, not that the current government is any better which is one of the many reasons I dislike them too.

I hope Rishi Sunak is listening. He and his two predecessors are far worse than Khan in this respect.

 

[Peter Sarf]

You are, l assume, aware that the air quality in London is awful and that HMG has lost just about every legal case it has faced over pollution. In some places annual pollution levels were exceeded in January. A case a few years ago decided that a young girl's death was directly caused by pollution. Doing nothing is not an option and will lead to a shedload more litigation.

Oh, l live in inner London, l have a compliant car, and l absolutely support Mayor Khan in implementing plans originally put in place by his predecessor.... Remember him? Bushy blond hair....

I can assure you that Mayor Khan is highly likely to be re-elected too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2023 ==


Agreed. Much of said minority is scientifically illiterate too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2023 ==


I do and l think that it is wholly beneficial.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2023 ==


That will be the Hillingdon Council who had reviews (look at their websites) undertaken that suggested that limits were exceeded particularly around Heathrow Airport.....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2023 ==


When l see utter garbage like that l wonder if it is worth bothering....

New highly localised data shows every borough in London exceeds World Health Organization limits for toxic pollution

New analysis of diffusion tubes at locations across the city, which has been compiled by City Hall has, today revealed that whilst some progress has been made improving air quality in the capital, every London borough is breaching World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for nitrogen dioxide.

www.london.gov.uk

The headline message:

• Air quality monitoring data from diffusion tubes shows that air pollution in all London boroughs exceeds WHO guidelines for deadly nitrogen dioxide

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2023 ==


I suggest that you listen to the late Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah's mother to find the answer to that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2023 ==


MPH or MPG? The context suggests the latter.

How many of London's population believe air quality is a problem ?. I am not talking about people who read the statistics and understand them. I suspect the vast majority don't know and don't care.

How's it different to living in one District Council and the neighbouring one putting up their parking charges?

Does that mean that they can't because it'll impact you (and others who don't live in their district) as you don't have a political say?

I think the problem with London is it draws in a lot of people from outside London.

Stop making things up, as it is frankly making you look quite silly. Car dealers accept EVs as part exchange routinely.



Funnily enough one of my friends sold his EV back to the dealer he bought it from last year. He got more from the dealer than he paid for it originally.

One thing that occurs to me about EVs is perhaps dealers are only very recently backing away from EVs - I honestly don't know. This could be because perhaps demand for second hand EVs has fallen away. It could be if EVs are seen as a liability due to battery fires. One example is a ship load of brand new cars including 498 EVs on fire.

I have been told second hand prices for cars have risen generally so not just for EVs. This will be because demand for second hand cars is not being met by supply. That is because people are not part exchanging their older car because the new car they want is not available. Availability of new cars has been put down to Covid resulting in a shortage of computer cips from China.

But @Mabs posts are so hyperbolic and just plain wrong that if it is a move to delay/stop the progressive removal of EVs from UK roads, it will at best make no difference at all. Anybody actually faced with replacing a polluting IC vehicle will realise the that this tirade is so far removed from any authoritative discourse on EVs that it can be assumed as irrelevant and actually improves the case for EVs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2023 ==



Fair enough, I might even agree with you on the previous mayor and have mixed views of Livingstone.

I did not like Livingstone BUT he did go to work by public transport apparently so has my respect.

Well he was (and probably still is) a Human Rights Lawyer, so maybe that irks you.

I supose it should. Its this legal culture that is apparently why the unnoticeably dirty air is being cleaned up.

The London Mayor has the problem of fixing a major health issue that is the intention of ULEZ, (see othersin this thread quoting the actual nature of the pollution in official figures). Crime is another of his responsibilities, and I'm sure gets plenty of his attention.

It is only being fixed because people can sue. If people suffering as a result of ULEZ could sue than maybe there would be a balance.

---

The problem I have with ULEZ is that it is being forced on us.

It is poorer motorists who are going to be financially disadvantaged and most of them will not be eligible for the scrappage scheme. Furthermore if they did get £2000 then what sort of car could they buy - an old banger ?.

There is a shortage of good second hand cars as evidenced by the current high prices. So this is not a good time to encourage people to upgrade.

What effect is this ULEZ going to have on the economy ?. An economy that is not in a good state of health - were doing worse in the UK than comparable countries.

Nothing has been done to make the car less necessary. Instead shops are still opening up in out of town locations where public transport is not centred upon so is not able to serve properly. No forward thinking - I have worried about out of town shopping for decades.

How many of the people making these decisions for us use public transport ?. How many can afford a nice brand new car ?.

The point is made that it is only a minority of car owners who are against ULEZ. It does not follow that a majority are in favour of ULEZ. How many just don't care. I can argue the majority are "alright Jack". What about the car owners that are going to suffer - how many of them are in favour ?. We are in danger of marginalising law abiding citizens.

What about dealing with known killers - knife crime. Too difficult because it is hard to monitor people with no number plate on their back. We are too politically correct to allow the police to stop and search whoever the police feel they need to. I live in Croydon - yet another stabbing yesterday afternoon. The poeple worring about a bit of smoke are living in a dream world.

 

[AM9]

How many of London's population believe air quality is a problem ?. I am not talking about people who read the statistics and understand them. I suspect the vast majority don't know and don't care.
*1) see below


One thing that occurs to me about EVs is perhaps dealers are only very recently backing away from EVs - I honestly don't know. This could be because perhaps demand for second hand EVs has fallen away. It could be if EVs are seen as a liability due to battery fires. One example is a ship load of brand new cars including 498 EVs on fire.

I have been told second hand prices for cars have risen generally so not just for EVs. This will be because demand for second hand cars is not being met by supply. That is because people are not part exchanging their older car because the new car they want is not available. Availability of new cars has been put down to Covid resulting in a shortage of computer cips from China.
*2) below


I supose it should. Its this legal culture that is apparently why the unnoticeably dirty air is being cleaned up.
*3)


The point is made that it is only a minority of car owners who are against ULEZ. It does not follow that a majority are in favour of ULEZ. How many just don't care. I can argue the majority are "alright Jack". What about the car owners that are going to suffer - how many of them are in favour ?. We are in danger of marginalising law abiding citizens.
*4)

What about dealing with known killers - knife crime. Too difficult because it is hard to monitor people with no number plate on their back. We are too politically correct to allow the police to stop and search whoever the police feel they need to. I live in Croydon - yet another stabbing yesterday afternoon. The poeple worring about a bit of smoke are living in a dream world.

*5)


1) So the people whose health isn't affected yet don't care, i.e. "not my problem". Nothing new about that, the same as for smoking 20 years ago.

2) Article in Sunday Times today, read this morning but not availble at the moment, says that dealers are now having secondhand EVs at lower prices than last year.

3) See 1) above, i.e. doesn't affect me (yet!) so not my problem. Please read the figures posted by others in this thread.

4) Is their 'suffering' anywhere near as serious as the health effects of NoX pollution?

5) Not even worth commenting on, - clearly you haven't read many of the comments in this thread.

 

[stuu]

What about dealing with known killers - knife crime. Too difficult because it is hard to monitor people with no number plate on their back. We are too politically correct to allow the police to stop and search whoever the police feel they need to. I live in Croydon - yet another stabbing yesterday afternoon. The poeple worring about a bit of smoke are living in a dream world.

This just shows how bad people are at understanding risk. You are statistically extremely unlikely to get stabbed, whilst air pollution affects every single person. It kills a lot more people than knife crime, not that you would know that from the media

 

[bramling]

I hope Rishi Sunak is listening. He and his two predecessors are far worse than Khan in this respect.

No disagreement from me there, they’re all awful.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2023 ==

This just shows how bad people are at understanding risk. You are statistically extremely unlikely to get stabbed, whilst air pollution affects every single person. It kills a lot more people than knife crime, not that you would know that from the media

Disagree with the above. In the last couple of years there’s been a (fatal) stabbing right outside my office, a stabbing outside an Underground station that I was using at the time, and also my nephew was robbed at knifepoint in a London street. Whatever statistics may or not say, that’s *very* close to home indeed.

Add to that the constant feral atmosphere that has developed over the last decade or so. Every evening on the Underground is now characterised by quite violent fights, and at an increasing number of stations staff find it hard to challenge problem behaviour for fear of getting badly assaulted. To repeat, this has got considerably worse over the last 10-15 years, and continues to do so.

I know a long-serving revenue officer on LU who recently quit the role and moved elsewhere, because “if I stayed in the role I think I would be quite likely to get stabbed”. This isn’t just media hype, but people who have regular experience of working close-at-hand with the London population.

Perhaps if people felt street crime was under control then they might feel more able to do journeys by other means? As it is apparently even cyclists are now a target as the criminal fraternity has sussed that Bromptons are valuable.

Certainly plenty for Khan and other politicians to be getting on with there, but of course there’s no money to be made attempting to tackle crime. Much easier to stick some ANPR cameras up and screw the motorist over.

 

[jon0844]

Rishi would appear to be trying to appeal to the petrol heads and already we're seeing that the Government is to pull funding for LTNs and other projects that encourage walking or cycling, and then he's photographed sitting in an old ICE car presumably as a statement against ULEZ. Oh and he uses his helicopter or jet to get around.

I am going to go out on a limb and say it's quite likely he's had lobbyists working hard on him, which might also be why the energy companies were able to make such ridiculous profits and the taxpayer funded the discounts, instead of the poor energy suppliers with parent companies taking in literally billions in profit by limiting supply and driving up prices.

I wouldn't be surprised now if the Tories don't go into the Mayoral elections by claiming they'd axe the ULEZ if a Tory gets in.

 

[bramling]

But there are various alternative options. You can walk, cycle, use public transport

Not necessarily. For my journeys to/from London it’s too far to walk, and cycling is only viable at very quiet times of day (and I’m someone who is incredibly active). As for public transport, this isn’t viable at certain times of day, and with the recent rail disruption it simply hasn’t been an option.

make alternative arrangements so you don’t have to make that journey.

Not really helpful. London *needs* people from the Home Counties to fill certain roles. There’s an increasing problem with people from London not being able to meet basic standards of verbal or written communication, which naturally is going to be required for certain roles.

 

[Horizon22]

Not really helpful. London *needs* people from the Home Counties to fill certain roles. There’s an increasing problem with people from London not being able to meet basic standards of verbal or written communication, which naturally is going to be required for certain roles.

Since when? That’s borderline xenophobic.

The real increasing problem is the cost of renting / housing in London.

 

[bramling]

Since when? That’s borderline xenophobic.

Certainly an increasing issue over time. Regardless of how one dresses it up, if we have roles where safety-critical comms are necessary then a good standard of communication (spoken and/or written) is essential.

The real increasing problem is the cost of renting / housing in London.

Another issue the current crop of politicians have presided over and only paid lip service to.

 

[Horizon22]

Certainly an increasing issue over time. Regardless of how one dresses it up, if we have roles where safety-critical comms are necessary then a good standard of communication (spoken and/or written) is essential.

I think that's a hugely sweeping statement to make and I've not seen practically no evidence of this.

Another issue the current crop of politicians have presided over and only paid lip service to.

Your gripe seems to be for politicians of all persuasions really. In which case, if you're going to be anti-everyone, it's probably not useful to be involved in a discussion involving policies, actions and consequences.

 

[Noddy]

Not necessarily. For my journeys to/from London it’s too far to walk, and cycling is only viable at very quiet times of day (and I’m someone who is incredibly active). As for public transport, this isn’t viable at certain times of day, and with the recent rail disruption it simply hasn’t been an option.





Not really helpful. London *needs* people from the Home Counties to fill certain roles. There’s an increasing problem with people from London not being able to meet basic standards of verbal or written communication, which naturally is going to be required for certain roles.

If you can’t do any those there was another option I listed and that’s simply to use a less polluting vehicle, which the vast vast majority of people already have. However, it does rather feel like you want to be able to drive your polluting car in London for the sake of driving your polluting car in London and to hell with everyone else, their health and the wider environment.

 

[bramling]

I think that's a hugely sweeping statement to make and I've not seen practically no evidence of this.

I can only speak through experience.

Your gripe seems to be for politicians of all persuasions really. In which case, if you're going to be anti-everyone, it's probably not useful to be involved in a discussion involving policies, actions and consequences.

You may well be right in that, yes, I am sick of pretty much all politicians at the minute. I’m far from alone in feeling this way though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2023 ==

If you can’t do any those there was another option I listed and that’s simply to use a less polluting vehicle, which the vast vast majority of people already have. However, it does rather feel like you want to be able to drive your polluting car in London for the sake of driving your polluting car in London and to hell with everyone else, their health and the wider environment.

From a personal view, of my three cars two *are* compliant. The third one it seems may well actually be, I’m in the process of getting clarification at the moment, as it fits in the category of not being on TFL’s database. I do not regularly drive the third one in London, but have been taking it there occasionally for the last twenty years, nowadays mainly as a means of giving it a run every 7-14 days if it’s done nothing else. So from a personal point of view the inconvenience is minor, and may well turn out not to be at all.

However this doesn’t detract from the wider issue that if we’re going to have these sorts of policies I would prefer them to emanate from Westminster, where as I said before there is both parliamentary scrutiny as well as accountability at the ballot box. Not from some jumped-up glorified council leader post whom for some reason seems to get elected on the basis of who is the biggest maverick personality. Of the previous two mayors we’ve had one who has turned out to be a very weird and unsavoury piece of work, and I’m sure I don’t need to summarise all the faults of the second one as apart from anything else I’d be needing to grind my fingers by the end of it.

There’s also a wider issue of mission creep with all this. Now the infrastructure is in place, what’s next? Bear in mind there’s already been semi-serious talk of measures like a “boundary charge”. I simply don’t trust Khan to leave it at this.

 

[Horizon22]

I can only speak through experience.



You may well be right in that, yes, I am sick of pretty much all politicians at the minute. I’m far from alone in feeling this way though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2023 ==



From a personal view, of my three cars two *are* compliant. The third one it seems may well actually be, I’m in the process of getting clarification at the moment, as it fits in the category of not being on TFL’s database. I do not regularly drive the third one in London, but have been taking it there occasionally for the last twenty years, nowadays mainly as a means of giving it a run every 7-14 days if it’s done nothing else. So from a personal point of view the inconvenience is minor, and may well turn out not to be at all.

However this doesn’t detract from the wider issue that if we’re going to have these sorts of policies I would prefer them to emanate from Westminster, where as I said before there is both parliamentary scrutiny as well as accountability at the ballot box. Not from some jumped-up glorified council leader post whom for some reason seems to get elected on the basis of who is the biggest maverick personality. Of the previous two mayors we’ve had one who has turned out to be a very weird and unsavoury piece of work, and I’m sure I don’t need to summarise all the faults of the second one as apart from anything else I’d be needing to grind my fingers by the end of it.

There’s also a wider issue of mission creep with all this. Now the infrastructure is in place, what’s next? Bear in mind there’s already been semi-serious talk of measures like a “boundary charge”. I simply don’t trust Khan to leave it at this.

Why do you need 3 cars? This seems a bit excessive and to be honest your 3rd car sounds like the exact sort of vehicle that is being targetted by this sort of measure.

 

[Dai Corner]

I wonder if opinion was as divided and discussion as heated as this seventy years ago in the period leading up to the first Clean Air Act being passed in 1956?

Brief history - DEFRA UK Air - GOV.UK

uk-air.defra.gov.uk

Air pollution and its effects on population health became an increasingly serious problem from the Industrial Revolution, as our reliance and ever-increasing need for energy relied upon the burning of fossil fuels. As a consequence of this, it was not uncommon that unfavourable weather conditions could promote the formation of urban smogs. Historic sources suggest that particularly bad smog events caused thousands of the premature deaths of susceptible people. Recent history depicts the infamous smogs of the 1950s and 60s, which finally precipitated both vociferous public concern and decisive Government action regarding air pollution.

This resulted in the UK Government introducing its first Clean Air Act in 1956.

 

[bramling]

Why do you need 3 cars? This seems a bit excessive and to be honest your 3rd car sounds like the exact sort of vehicle that is being targetted by this sort of measure.

1x BMW F10 (2015) 55,000 miles. This is now the main runner, though I don’t want to put all the commuting miles on it.

1x BMW E39 (2000) 196,000 miles. This was previously the main runner, but is now mainly for holidays. I keep it because it’s more robust than the newer one which is useful for holiday work which in my case can be *highly* demanding on the car, and as it happens I also enjoy driving it. I have no desire to use it for regular work or local journeys, but equally it needs to be used on a semi-regular basis simply to keep it conditioned.

1x Hyundai i30 (2010) 105,000 miles. This was originally for moving dogs, but I have retained it as it is useful for balancing the mileage on the other two, and more recently the roof rack has proved useful in transporting a rowing shell.

It’s the middle of those which is the issue, though it seems it may well actually be compliant after all, though this doesn’t change my views of either the ULEZ scheme, the post of London major, Khan or his two predecessors!

 

[Dai Corner]

Why do you need 3 cars? This seems a bit excessive and to be honest your 3rd car sounds like the exact sort of vehicle that is being targetted by this sort of measure.

Why shouldn't he? Presumably he only drives one at a time, whichever is the most suitable for the journey being made.

 

[bramling]

Why shouldn't he? Presumably he only drives one at a time, whichever is the most suitable for the journey being made.

Absolutely. The only time more than one is out at any one time is when one is under maintenance.

 

[Horizon22]

Why shouldn't he? Presumably he only drives one at a time, whichever is the most suitable for the journey being made.

I said need. Nothing suggests they are needed and when in maintenance most people have a hire car, or use the 2nd one. Three seems excessive.

 

[bramling]

I said need. Nothing suggests they are needed and when in maintenance most people have a hire car, or use the 2nd one. Three seems excessive.

In strict terms no three aren’t needed. But it isn’t really relevant as, as stated, only one will be on the road at any one time. For holiday purposes really the second one *is* necessary, as it’s the only one of the three that has proved suitable for the demands made on it. This in turns creates a need for conditioning trips.

In terms of the Hyundai this is the only one which can carry the shell on the roof as I’m not convinced of the viability of putting a rack on either of the other two.

But, really, why shouldn’t I have three? I can afford to run and maintain them, so it’s more a case of spreading mileage over three. It isn’t increasing overall mileage at all.

 

[Peter Sarf]

*5)


1) So the people whose health isn't affected yet don't care, i.e. "not my problem". Nothing new about that, the same as for smoking 20 years ago.

I think it is a case of what people perceive as danger that is important. I would urge people to not underestimate the non-pollution dangers in parts of London and they are not getting addressed.

2) Article in Sunday Times today, read this morning but not availble at the moment, says that dealers are now having secondhand EVs at lower prices than last year.

3) See 1) above, i.e. doesn't affect me (yet!) so not my problem. Please read the figures posted by others in this thread.

4) Is their 'suffering' anywhere near as serious as the health effects of NoX pollution?

Well. I wonder. Certainly the perceived effect of NOX pollution will be less than the effects on poorer motorists. I can see an example of coming home to roost being care workers giving up their jobs because having no car makes the job unworkable. What happens to the health of those needing care. We all want someone else to look after our older relatives.

5) Not even worth commenting on, - clearly you haven't read many of the comments in this thread.

Well we will just have to agree to differ.

This just shows how bad people are at understanding risk. You are statistically extremely unlikely to get stabbed, whilst air pollution affects every single person. It kills a lot more people than knife crime, not that you would know that from the media

I am afraid I see in my face the dangers from fellow human beings. I don't see much respiratory illness. Perhaps I have it wrong BUT I know which dangers I want suppressed.

No disagreement from me there, they’re all awful.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2023 ==



Disagree with the above. In the last couple of years there’s been a (fatal) stabbing right outside my office, a stabbing outside an Underground station that I was using at the time, and also my nephew was robbed at knifepoint in a London street. Whatever statistics may or not say, that’s *very* close to home indeed.

I too feel a lot less safe in Croydon (South London) than 35 years ago. It is not just the number of stabbings. I know a few people who have been mugged at knife-point.

Add to that the constant feral atmosphere that has developed over the last decade or so. Every evening on the Underground is now characterised by quite violent fights, and at an increasing number of stations staff find it hard to challenge problem behaviour for fear of getting badly assaulted. To repeat, this has got considerably worse over the last 10-15 years, and continues to do so.

The Feral behaviour is continuous in central Croydon when I am there. Civilisation is going downhill faster and faster. And the authorities worry about things that are easy fixes or soft targets.

I know a long-serving revenue officer on LU who recently quit the role and moved elsewhere, because “if I stayed in the role I think I would be quite likely to get stabbed”. This isn’t just media hype, but people who have regular experience of working close-at-hand with the London population.

For example I see people jumping the ticket barriers or forcing them open. Staff look like they are trying not to notice. What message does all this send to law abiding citizens. I don't want to be here.

Perhaps if people felt street crime was under control then they might feel more able to do journeys by other means? As it is apparently even cyclists are now a target as the criminal fraternity has sussed that Bromptons are valuable.

I agree.

Certainly plenty for Khan and other politicians to be getting on with there, but of course there’s no money to be made attempting to tackle crime. Much easier to stick some ANPR cameras up and screw the motorist over.

Afraid so - soft target. What else can they use those cameras for eh !.

Oh and cameras have gone up in advance so that tells me how likely any realistic "consultation" was likely to be.

Rishi would appear to be trying to appeal to the petrol heads and already we're seeing that the Government is to pull funding for LTNs and other projects that encourage walking or cycling, and then he's photographed sitting in an old ICE car presumably as a statement against ULEZ. Oh and he uses his helicopter or jet to get around.

I am going to go out on a limb and say it's quite likely he's had lobbyists working hard on him, which might also be why the energy companies were able to make such ridiculous profits and the taxpayer funded the discounts, instead of the poor energy suppliers with parent companies taking in literally billions in profit by limiting supply and driving up prices.

I wouldn't be surprised now if the Tories don't go into the Mayoral elections by claiming they'd axe the ULEZ if a Tory gets in.

If energy supply is so profitable why have so many gone out of business recently ?.

Some of the headlines about profits have been a bit sensationalist. I saw one headline where a firms profits had increased by several hundred percent (almost 900% iirc) - but the previous profit was almost a loss so a large percentage of not very much. But there is scope to control things. They were nationalised industries once !.

Since when? That’s borderline xenophobic.

The real increasing problem is the cost of renting / housing in London.

But it seems to me to be the case that standards of communication within the London catchment area are declining. If that is being Xenophobic then I am speechless.

I wonder if opinion was as divided and discussion as heated as this seventy years ago in the period leading up to the first Clean Air Act being passed in 1956?

Brief history - DEFRA UK Air - GOV.UK

uk-air.defra.gov.uk

The level of pollution was a lot more serious than the pollution issues of today.

1x BMW F10 (2015) 55,000 miles. This is now the main runner, though I don’t want to put all the commuting miles on it.

1x BMW E39 (2000) 196,000 miles. This was previously the main runner, but is now mainly for holidays. I keep it because it’s more robust than the newer one which is useful for holiday work which in my case can be *highly* demanding on the car, and as it happens I also enjoy driving it. I have no desire to use it for regular work or local journeys, but equally it needs to be used on a semi-regular basis simply to keep it conditioned.

1x Hyundai i30 (2010) 105,000 miles. This was originally for moving dogs, but I have retained it as it is useful for balancing the mileage on the other two, and more recently the roof rack has proved useful in transporting a rowing shell.

It’s the middle of those which is the issue, though it seems it may well actually be compliant after all, though this doesn’t change my views of either the ULEZ scheme, the post of London major, Khan or his two predecessors!

To me it looks like you avoid using the more polluting car unless you need its capabilities. The other two seem to be good for the majority of trips where a more efficient and cleaner car will suffice.

I said need. Nothing suggests they are needed and when in maintenance most people have a hire car, or use the 2nd one. Three seems excessive.

But it does not really matter how many cars @bramling has it is how they are used.

---

As I said before. I think this is a headlong rush to address a pollution issue that would decline if they actually addressed the reason people use cars. Instead it is a stick rather than a carrot.

 

[The Ham]

Big difference, in that parking is to a large extent a take-it-or-leave-it thing, in that there are generally alternative options including normally plenty of privately owned parking options. Whereas the ability to drive along a road without incurring a significant charge is pretty fundamental.

However in the latter example it's only a percentage of all cars (based on the current results of the poll if replicated the within the ULEZ then it would likely be 7-17%) which would be charged, unlike the former where 100% of cars using it would be charged.

I think the problem with London is it draws in a lot of people from outside London

Whilst that's true, that's also true of a lot of places - obviously due to the size of London there's a lot more people. However a lot will also be able to use public transport (which isn't necessarily the same in other places.

It is poorer motorists who are going to be financially disadvantaged and most of them will not be eligible for the scrappage scheme. Furthermore if they did get £2000 then what sort of car could they buy - an old banger ?.

Chances are anyone taking up the scrappage scheme are likely to have vehicles which are worth less than that (otherwise you'd just sell it).

Another issue the current crop of politicians have presided over and only paid lip service to.

National government (since 2010) "have built 2.2 million homes", this is about 170,000 a year, so which is quite a bit less than the 300,000 which is their target. Over a year or two that's not a big shortfall, however over 13 years that's 1.7 million.

 

[jon0844]

If energy supply is so profitable why have so many gone out of business recently ?.

Because a lot of companies were just gambling and buying and selling different energy with no production of their own. When they did well, they made a tidy profit and paid themselves generously. When they did bad, they, erm, folded and left the taxpayer to cover the losses with higher standing charges.

And we had a regulator that encouraged some student not long out of uni and others to set up and trade, taking money from customers and instead of keeping it safe being allowed to use it as capital to speculate on the market. What's more, there seemed to be no requirement to make it clear to people who were quite shocked when they found out, after their supplier went under.

The big energy suppliers are of course owners by the oil producers and have done very well. Now, sure, they'll say they've struggled too and have to charge high prices - but it's their parent company making energy so expensive. Funny that.

A totally flawed system but one that clearly makes a lot of people very rich. Naturally those companies want to protect that income for years to come.

 

[Bald Rick]

If energy supply is so profitable why have so many gone out of business recently ?.

The energy companies that have gone out of business weren’t really energy companies, they were financial traders, taking a risk on the market, and their gambles failed.

 

[tomuk]

This just shows how bad people are at understanding risk. You are statistically extremely unlikely to get stabbed, whilst air pollution affects every single person. It kills a lot more people than knife crime, not that you would know that from the media

No it just goes to show how you don't understand the risk due to exposure to air pollution. The much reported COMEAP report is controversial in the way it 'simplified' the mortality statistics involved to 40,000 deaths. The reports lead author admits that a figure of 340,000 years of reduced life expectancy is more representative. This for example could be seen to shortening 569,000 people lives by six months.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2023 ==

The big energy suppliers are of course owners by the oil producers and have done very well. Now, sure, they'll say they've struggled too and have to charge high prices - but it's their parent company making energy so expensive. Funny that.

Would you like to name any of these big energy suppliers owned by oil producers? You seem to have an obsession with big oil conspiracies.

 

[jon0844]

It's not a conspiracy theory when they openly admit to lobbying and paying influencers to promote their message and industry. They're not even doing anything illegal, and now people are struggling it will be even easier to argue that now isn't the time to invest in green energy solutions. As we're now seeing and will likely see more of before the election.

The fact that energy prices are based on the most expensive method of generation seems to fly over most people's heads. We need green energy more than ever to bring prices down.

 

[Peter Sarf]

.......................

Chances are anyone taking up the scrappage scheme are likely to have vehicles which are worth less than that (otherwise you'd just sell it).

........................

Trouble is that its not the car they are scrapping that is important. How far will £2,000 go towards buying a replacement car ?. The old car could be almost worthless BUT if it still works it is usable and has a value beyond its sale/scrap value. Often an owner in that league has to fork out quite a lot to more than the old car is worth to replace it. This happens with insurance write-offs where the insured gets what the old car WAS worth not what it costs to REPLACE as a similar aged car is rare or too likely to be a dudd (in the case of ULEZ of course has to be newer).

It's not a conspiracy theory when they openly admit to lobbying and paying influencers to promote their message and industry. They're not even doing anything illegal, and now people are struggling it will be even easier to argue that now isn't the time to invest in green energy solutions. As we're now seeing and will likely see more of before the election.

The fact that energy prices are based on the most expensive method of generation seems to fly over most people's heads. We need green energy more than ever to bring prices down.

For me green would be insulating peoples homes so that the country as a whole needs less energy. Getting where people want to go back into town centres where public transport heads would reduce the need to use a car which is a lot greener than a new car still being driven to the out of town shops etc. ULEZ does not address the car culture we have become dependant on it just disadvantages the disadvantaged.

 

[DustyBin]

But, really, why shouldn’t I have three? I can afford to run and maintain them, so it’s more a case of spreading mileage over three. It isn’t increasing overall mileage at all.

Because some people don’t approve. You appear to be living in a bygone age of “live and let live” (within reason obviously). We’ve moved on from that now.

 

[tomuk]

It's not a conspiracy theory when they openly admit to lobbying and paying influencers to promote their message and industry. They're not even doing anything illegal, and now people are struggling it will be even easier to argue that now isn't the time to invest in green energy solutions. As we're now seeing and will likely see more of before the election.

The fact that energy prices are based on the most expensive method of generation seems to fly over most people's heads. We need green energy more than ever to bring prices down.

You haven't named the companies.

 

[bramling]

Because some people don’t approve. You appear to be living in a bygone age of “live and let live” (within reason obviously). We’ve moved on from that now.

 

[Noddy]

@bramling We get that you don’t like the current devolution settlement but saying Khan has no authority because you don’t like a policy he was elected on whilst acknowledging you don’t get to vote in London because you live outside is a very NIMBY reaction. Low emission zones are happing in cities across the UK to help reduce what central government has defined as illegal levels of air pollution. You are completely missing the point that they aim to help people have healthier lives and this really does come across as pretty selfish as your justification for not having them appears to be entirely focused on your personal dislike of Khan (and his predecessors) which is rather irrelevant to the pros and cons of LEZs/ULEZ.